G L A COLLEGE AND ANOTHERN vs KUMARI RAJNI SINGH

THESE two appeals (FA No. 261 of 2006 and FA No. 607 of 2007) arise out of a common judgment dated 20. 6. 2006, passed by Palamau District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2006 and, therefore, have been heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

ORIGINALLY the Principal, the Controller of Examination and the Cashier of G. L. A. College, Daltonganj filed FA No. 261 of 2006 and subsequently on behalf of Controller of Examination, appellant No. 2 therein a prayer was made to transpose him as respondent with a liberty to file separate appeal as there was conflict of interest between him and the Principal of the college in view of the stand taken in the matter. Hence, on 28. 3. 2007 name of appellant No. 2 from the cause title of FA No. 261 of 2006 was deleted and he was transposed as respondent No. 2. On the same day Tripurari Sahar, the Controller of Examination of G. L. A. College, Daltonganj filed separate FA No. 607 of 2007. The complainant was a regular student of G. L. A. College, Daltonganj. She completed the session and became eligible for appearing in I. Sc. final examination, 2006 to be conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. On 28. 11. 2005 she deposited the required fee of Rs. 1,226. 00 vide Receipt No. 5017, but her examination form was not sent to the Council and she could not appear in the said examination. She filed Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2006 against the Principal, Controller of Examination and Cashier of G. L. A. College and claimed compensation of Rs. 2,20,000. 00 to be paid to her for loss and damage to her academic career for one year.

The Principal, Controller of Examination and Cashier of G. L. A. College, Daltonganj jointly filed written statement and contested the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that ''education'' did not come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, that it was duty of examination department of the College headed by the Controller of Examination to send the form to the Council for preparation of Admit Card, etc. for the candidate to sit in the examination. Further the Principal had already displayed notice on 9. 2. 2006 (the examination was scheduled to be held from 21. 2. 2006) for collection of Admit Cards and for giving information, if Admit Card was not received for any reason so that necessary steps could be taken by the Principal in this regard well before commencement of examination. The complainant did not inform the Principal or the Examination Department. The opposite parties much less the Principal was not responsible for sending the form to the Intermediate Council.

THE District Consumer Forum, on the ratio of a decision of the National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, in Tilak Raj of Chandigarh v. Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, I (1992) CPJ 76=1991 (2) CPR 309 (NC), held that the college imparting education for consideration would come squarely within the ambit of ''''service'''' under the 1986 Act. Accordingly the complainant was held to be a ''consumer'' and the complaint to be maintainable. It was further held that the Principal of the College being head of the College was responsible for any omission or commission of its employees. It cannot be said that Controller of Examination of the college alone was responsible for not sending the examination form of the complainant to the Council. The District Forum further observed that notice dated 9. 2. 2006, if any was of no help to the complainant because nothing could have been done at that stage. Such notice was helpful only to those students, whose examination forms were already forwarded to the Council, but for some other reason the Admit cards were not issued to them. The opposite parties aforesaid were held deficient in service and were directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. one lac as compensation to the complainant. Further direction was given to them to refund Rs. 1,226. 00 which was deposited by the complainant as examination fee.

IT is now well settled that student is a ''consumer'' and imparting of education for consideration is a ''service'' within the meaning of the 1986 Act. The complainant had deposited examination fees towards conducting the examination, valuation of the answer scripts, publishing the results and awarding the degrees/diploma. Hence, a student or his guardian is entitled to approach the Consumer Forums, if there is deficiency in rendering any of the above services. In the present case the College admitted that the examination form of the complainant was not sent to the Intermediate Council, hence deficiency in service on the part of the College (G. L. A.) authorities stood established and for that the complainant definitely suffered and her academic career for one year was damaged, as she could not appear in I. Sc. examination in the year 2006. In the aforesaid circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in these two appeals. There is no merit in the appeals. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, for the ends of justice, a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 shall be appropriate and adequate to be paid to her by way of compensation. Accordingly we reduce the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum (Rs. one lac) to Rs. 25,000. 00 and modify the impugned judgment only to that extent. The college is at liberty to realise the said amount from the person concerned, who was responsible for not sending the form to the Council.

IN the result, these two appeals are allowed in part with aforesaid modifications in the impugned judgment. No cost. Appeals partly allowed.